DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:
and who has the right to determine what is substandard for MYneeds?

the same government that currently decides what vehicles are safe enough for you to drive, what food is safe enough for you to eat, what medicines are safe enough for you to take......just to name a few.

yes, they have a right to regulate the industry and set certain standards on newer vehicles, safety and fuel economy come to mind. HOWEVER they don't have the right to tell me which vehicle fits my needs or require me to own one of those newer vehicles now do they??
I have the right (for now) to own an older vehicle which does not meet the current safety or emission standards. that right does not exist anymore with insurance companies. so your analogy has a serious flaw.

callmeslick wrote:

currently my deductible and co-pay have gone up so much because of this new insurance it has effectually become nothing more then catastrophic medical insurance. that doesn't fit my needs. and I have a Gold Policy through work. ['quote]
don't blame the ACA for that, the issue is with your gouging insurance company. Of course, had the GOP allowed for a public option, and forced the hand of the private insurers, stuff like this might not happen. However, stuff like this HAS been happening for like,20 years, in the private sector, and if you want to be honest, you damn well know it. Oh, and if deductable is more than $3000, and copay more than $40 per visit, that is NOT a gold plan you have.....

I'm at work right now so I don't have the time at the moment to address all your other **** partisan distortions, but I will. I've been lied to enough about this insurance and your not going to add to it by parroting the Democrats talking points and your inability to think truthfully on your own about this subject. you go out of your way to call those that oppose this legislation as partisan. interestingly I can dial up Nancy Pelosi / Harry Reid / President Obama talking points and remarkably they are word for word what you say. kind of funny how that works for a declared centrist

get mad at me all you want, big guy.....I can take it(I'm in a jolly mood after a few days at the beach). The true villans here are, and always have been, the for-profit insurance companies. They have driven the costs of insurance and care up at the grail of profit. Something has to be done to address this, and you can yell about 'Democrat talking points'(mine aren't, by the way), and whatever else you wish to blame, but so long as you avoid the real issue, you will continue to allow yourself to be victimized. Try as you will, the points I made above are correct. They are nobodies talking points. They are the freaking facts.

no actually the true villains here are the politicians that sell their souls to the highest bidders and then give the people that they are supposed to represent the middle finger. the lobbyists are conducting Business, the politicians are guilty of accepting a bribe

and I can post the Nancy Pelosi / Harry Reid video's with an uncanny resemblance to the words you use if you'd like

callmeslick wrote:geez, I keep waiting for ONE Republican to actually try and address the problem of millions of uninsured and millions more underinsured, and the comparatively poor healthcare outcomes in the US. Sadly, they only seem able to try and derail the one plan that DID get passed.

Not only that, but what Rubio wants to do is in effect give a stimulus package to the insurance industry by abolishing those "risk corridors". Dump the responsibility onto the government to make the insurance companies happy when they get stuck with a pool of high risk patients. Privatized profit, socialized risk. Seems to be a Republican meme. The government candy jar for private industry.

CUDA wrote:and I can post the Nancy Pelosi / Harry Reid video's with an uncanny resemblance to the words you use if you'd like

freaking plagarists!

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:
and who has the right to determine what is substandard for MYneeds?

the same government that currently decides what vehicles are safe enough for you to drive, what food is safe enough for you to eat, what medicines are safe enough for you to take......just to name a few.

Those are public safety issues, the analogy would be requiring car companies to have child seats in every car. Requiring everyone to have maternity coverage is a little stupid.

callmeslick wrote:The true villans here are, and always have been, the for-profit insurance companies. They have driven the costs of insurance and care up at the grail of profit. Something has to be done to address this.

Deliberately leaving out the health care industry itself is a little well....like the dishonest debate I keep talking about.

Spidey wrote:Those are public safety issues, the analogy would be requiring car companies to have child seats in every car. Requiring everyone to have maternity coverage is a little stupid.

so, the fact that people die, daily, in this country because lack of insurance causes them to avoid preventative treatment for decades, ISN'T A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE? Are you kidding me?

Deliberately leaving out the health care industry itself is a little well....like the dishonest debate I keep talking about.

the industry lives with far lower compensation from Medicare. They ★■◆● about it, but live well enough off it. I am not being dishonest, I am TRYING to focus on the real source of rapid inflation.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Those are public safety issues, the analogy would be requiring car companies to have child seats in every car. Requiring everyone to have maternity coverage is a little stupid.

so, the fact that people die, daily, in this country because lack of insurance causes them to avoid preventative treatment for decades, ISN'T A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE? Are you kidding me?

WAIT!!!!! don't people die in auto accidents everyday??? even with government intervention to make vehicles safer????

Well just more dishonest debate, my point wasn’t that actual poor health coverage wasn’t a problem, just that a one size fits all, is not appropriate.

But, I do love the indignant responses…

Also the Medicare remark is more dishonesty….Medicare is a small part of the overall income of the health care industry, and many providers complain about the low payments. (and some even refuse to take it)

CUDA wrote:WAIT!!!!! don't people die in auto accidents everyday??? even with government intervention to make vehicles safer????

yup, good analogy, CUDA. Thus, all the nonsense about how the ACA doesn't fix the whole problem in it's entirety would seem sort of silly, huh? Thanks so much for making that point for me!!

Spidey wrote:Well just more dishonest debate, my point wasn’t that actual poor health coverage wasn’t a problem, just that a one size fits all, is not appropriate.

huh, a reading of the English prose in your post would only show a whine about how I focused on insurance companies, and not the healthcare industry. You didn't mention 'one size fits all', although I see no one forcing such an approach on anyone. Hell, even with universal healthcare, there are always custom options, just like folks have with Medicare supplemental.

But, I do love the indignant responses…

maybe if you made your initial point more clearly, you wouldn't get them, but since you enjoy them..........

Also the Medicare remark is more dishonesty….Medicare is a small part of the overall income of the health care industry, and many providers complain about the low payments. (and some even refuse to take it)

now, you are completely off the rails. I worked for over 30 years in the healthcare industry(laboratory), and I can assure you that Medicare compensation is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE part of the total. Think of how much healthcare needs the average 70 year old needs compared to the average 30 year old....

now here's the view from the true left-wing media:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/2 ... =facebook#



hmmmm, never really thought of it this way, but, there is a bit of a point here.

From Wiki….

“Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures.”

So while 25% might not be a “small” percentage, it is most certainly not a “HUGE HUGE HUGE” percentage.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:WAIT!!!!! don't people die in auto accidents everyday??? even with government intervention to make vehicles safer????

yup, good analogy, CUDA. Thus, all the nonsense about how the ACA doesn't fix the whole problem in it's entirety would seem sort of silly, huh? Thanks so much for making that point for me!!

callmeslick wrote:so, the fact that people die, daily, in this country because lack of insurance causes them to avoid preventative treatment for decades, ISN'T A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE? Are you kidding me?

shot your own argument all to hell didn't you. then you selective edit to try and change the subject...... you implied that giving people health insurance would prevent them from dying DAILY as you put it because of preventative treatment. Nice try EPIC FAIL on your part

Ruh Roh

according to the latest projection.
when the employer mandate goes into effect another 80million people will lose their health insurance coverage.

no wonder the Democrats are turning on the president. Their hope of winning back the house have been replaced by their fears of losing both the senate and the Whitehouse

Spidey wrote:From Wiki….

“Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures.”

So while 25% might not be a “small” percentage, it is most certainly not a “HUGE HUGE HUGE” percentage.

in the Lab segment of the industry, it is the difference between profit and loss. That's HUGE.

'projection'= panic mongering by the right.
'Nuff said.........where are all these Dems turning on the President?

callmeslick wrote:'projection'= panic mongering by the right.
'Nuff said.........where are all these Dems turning on the President?

I know Nancy and Harry havent spoken about it yet so you werent prepared with your talking points, but it actually started a few weeks ago when Bill Clinton blasted the president for not keeping his promises about keeping you policies. And maybe you should do a Google search the stories are every where. And this is just one of at least 50 that i saw. But i know that would take effort on your part.
And FYI no fear mongering required. If the website isnt up and running on 12/1 like the president promised. You're going to see a full scale muntiny by those dems that are seeking reelection next year.

I do find it amusing that when the dems were all excited about the law they continually referred to it as obamacare. Now that its looking like a fiasco its suddenly the ACA no mention of obamacare,

There's nothing that Democrats want more than to change the subject from Obamacare, despite DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's protestations otherwise. Congressional Democrats don't want to be dealing with a drip-drip of news about premiums going up, patients losing their doctors, and a broken health care website as they face angry voters in 2014. Hillary Clinton doesn't want this issue lingering past the midterms. She hitched her presidential prospects to President Obama's wagon and she's not about to let someone else's crisis damage her presidential ambitions yet again, Even Vice President Joe Biden, who called the health care law a "big f---ing deal," didn't mention it once at a fundraiser last week for North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan.

Unless the HealthCare.gov website miraculously gets fixed by next month, there's a growing likelihood that over time, enough Democrats may join Republicans to decide to start over and scrap the whole complex health care enterprise. That became clear when even Obama, to stop the political bleeding, offered an administrative fix that threatened the viability of the entire individual exchange market to forestall a House Democratic mutiny the next day. It was as clear sign as any that the president is pessimistic about the odds that the federal exchange website will be ready by the end of the month, as promised.

On a side note polls have 55% of the people finding the president as untrustworthy.

WOW look at all those haters, it must be driving slick crazy, how do you deal with it

well, CUDA, as you no doubt know, I have NEVER called it Obamacare. Always been the ACA to me. Look, the website roll-out was a clusterfuck, pure and simple, and that screwup was inexcusable. Still, the facts are plain to see: a LOT of people, and a lot of folks who have been the last vestige of GOP support, are going to like what this law does. Further, what shortfalls there are will doubtless be addressed by future Democratic-dominated Congresses, which will come from sheer demographics, coupled with the absolute lack of ANY plan for ANYTHING that the people want out of the GOP. Will we eventually end up with Universal, Single-Payer insurance? I think so. I suspect Hillary will run on that, at least by her second term campaign.

Oh, and your polls......CUDA, how come you don't post the Republican numbers, which are essentially down to friends, staff and family and have been for a while?

No need to. I never called anyone who didnt like republicans hater. Like you have done continually with those that dont agree with the prseident.

Nice try at a subject change though

oh, my! Now you've got yourself so darned worked-up that you cannot type the word President correctly!. Just finish your coffee and get to work. Leave the heavy lifting for us retired guys....

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:From Wiki….

“Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures.”

So while 25% might not be a “small” percentage, it is most certainly not a “HUGE HUGE HUGE” percentage.

in the Lab segment of the industry, it is the difference between profit and loss. That's HUGE.

You’re not even making sense now, after stating that providers have to make due with less, when they take Medicare.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:From Wiki….

“Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures.”

So while 25% might not be a “small” percentage, it is most certainly not a “HUGE HUGE HUGE” percentage.

in the Lab segment of the industry, it is the difference between profit and loss. That's HUGE.

You’re not even making sense now, after stating that providers have to make due with less, when they take Medicare.

sure he is......it's income redistribution. the staple of the democratic platform. only certain people get to make a profit. you missed that??????

Spidey wrote:between profit and loss. That's HUGE.

You’re not even making sense now, after stating that providers have to make due with less, when they take Medicare.[/quote]
because there is significant profit at the Medicare reimbursement levels, and the providers have to cut deals with the private insurers that makes the higher compensation less(contract services etc). The Medicare money, in the lab business, makes up close to 50% of all revenues, and as such, is the difference between profit and loss, because there are a lot of fixed costs that aren't tied to sales volume or production scale.

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:From Wiki….

“Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures.”

So while 25% might not be a “small” percentage, it is most certainly not a “HUGE HUGE HUGE” percentage.

in the Lab segment of the industry, it is the difference between profit and loss. That's HUGE.

You’re not even making sense now, after stating that providers have to make due with less, when they take Medicare.

sure he is......it's income redistribution. the staple of the democratic platform. only certain people get to make a profit. you missed that??????

bottom line for me isn't about income redistribution(I can't see how one can even make that assertion, CUDA, frankly), but that healthcare ought to be, as I've stated many times on here, A BIRTHRIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP, not a source of profit for corporations. Sure, pay the workers in the field, but there is no need for layers of investors and a massive executive infrastructure(Medicare operates with 1/3 the executive staff) to bleed profit out of the whole thing. And, having discussed the matter with insurance execs, they seem to suggest that their industry will just move the focus and investment out of health insurance into other areas, and survive just fine.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:From Wiki….

“Medicare is the primary payer for between 20% and 25% of all United States healthcare expenditures.”

So while 25% might not be a “small” percentage, it is most certainly not a “HUGE HUGE HUGE” percentage.

in the Lab segment of the industry, it is the difference between profit and loss. That's HUGE.

You’re not even making sense now, after stating that providers have to make due with less, when they take Medicare.

sure he is......it's income redistribution. the staple of the democratic platform. only certain people get to make a profit. you missed that??????

bottom line for me isn't about income redistribution(I can't see how one can even make that assertion, CUDA, frankly), but that healthcare ought to be, as I've stated many times on here, A BIRTHRIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP, not a source of profit for corporations. Sure, pay the workers in the field, but there is no need for layers of investors and a massive executive infrastructure(Medicare operates with 1/3 the executive staff) to bleed profit out of the whole thing. And, having discussed the matter with insurance execs, they seem to suggest that their industry will just move the focus and investment out of health insurance into other areas, and survive just fine.

If it was about health-care for all then they would have done it like SS. and used a payroll deduction. and I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on a birth right.

callmeslick wrote:...
bottom line for me isn't about income redistribution(I can't see how one can even make that assertion, CUDA, frankly), but that healthcare ought to be, as I've stated many times on here, A BIRTHRIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP, not a source of profit for corporations. ...

That is a grand example of short sighted thinking. Have you compiled your criteria for what a government should consider a "birthright"?!? Because if you haven't, and instead have simply attached that very loaded bit of 'feel-good' verbiage to your advocacy for a political goal to appeal to the dumbmasses...or even a genuine concern for your fellow man...you have opened a Pandoras box that resembles a galaxy brimming with blackholes!

If a leader can get himself elected by offering to pass out candy to all the students and ban the lunch lady and shorten the week to only two days of classes....
Well, there will be no end of willing participants to that end-of-republic-as-we-knew-it pep rally!!

As I have said before, basic health care is easy to call a “birthright” but where do you draw the line….3 billion dollar complete skeleton replacements, for curing cancer?

There has to be some point where healthcare is your own responsibility, then when that point is passed…the “society” has some responsibility…but where does that end?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
bottom line for me isn't about income redistribution(I can't see how one can even make that assertion, CUDA, frankly), but that healthcare ought to be, as I've stated many times on here, A BIRTHRIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP, not a source of profit for corporations. ...

That is a grand example of short sighted thinking. Have you compiled your criteria for what a government should consider a "birthright"?!? Because if you haven't, and instead have simply attached that very loaded bit of 'feel-good' verbiage to your advocacy for a political goal to appeal to the dumbmasses...or even a genuine concern for your fellow man...you have opened a Pandoras box that resembles a galaxy brimming with blackholes!

If a leader can get himself elected by offering to pass out candy to all the students and ban the lunch lady and shorten the week to only two days of classes....
Well, there will be no end of willing participants to that end-of-republic-as-we-knew-it pep rally!!

I've long held the following to be birthrights(and worked accordingly in my political activity and giving):

1. Healthcare
2. Food(adequate for nutrition)
3. Clean Water
4. Education up to and including college

now, mind you, my list assumes the reality that we live in the most economically productive(wealthiest) society on the planet in all of history. So, yes, I have thought it out.

Spidey wrote:As I have said before, basic health care is easy to call a “birthright” but where do you draw the line….3 billion dollar complete skeleton replacements, for curing cancer?

There has to be some point where healthcare is your own responsibility, then when that point is passed…the “society” has some responsibility…but where does that end?

generally, in conversations with what I consider responsible conservatives, we've managed to agree on two things:
Catastrophic coverage for 'normal' medical conditions(no radical, experimental or the like, but curing cancers if they are curable would make the cut).
Routine preventative care, as this saves the whole system and society a lot of ancillary expenses down the line.


Anything else would be the responsibility of the individual to either purchase or insure against at his/her own cost.

The problem with our system is that every thing labeled "healthcare" is way too expensive. Even the most minor of doctor visits or procedures has sticker shock. Why is that? If we only really need catastrophic insurance for major health issues, why does everything mundane and common cost so much even if you don't have insurance? I hate to even walk into a small clinic for something minor and pay cash because I know I'm going to end up with months of separate bills dribbling in and a major wallet biopsy because of the way the system is set up. And trying to find out the cost of something health related even before you buy it is nearly impossible. Our system as it stands now is like buying a car, then waiting to have all the bills roll in from the separate manufacturers and suppliers just to find out what that car actually cost you in the end. Crazy.

I'm thinking back to the house insurance argument. We buy house insurance for fire, floods and other disasters. Rare, big expenses that may or may not happen. That's the reason why insurance is normally bought. Most homeowners can easily afford and pay out of pocket for maintenance issues like painting and roof or plumbing repairs. Why does our health insurance model have to cover EVERYTHING right down to brass tacks and split toenails? Why can't it be like house insurance, where a person only pays for illness disaster protection, ie., coverage for cancer, accidents or major surgery, which would be "optional" by the way, while smaller everyday health issues could be paid by the patient just like they walked into a store and shopped for it? If I could walk right into a clinic and get something minor looked at knowing beforehand what the actual costs were, just like shopping for hardware, I'd be far more proactive about my health and be willing to pay for it. I don't like giving the present system a blank check.

The problem I have always had with entitlements…in this case another word for “birthright” is this…

For every entitlement there has to be an “obligation”.

And I personally don’t feel obligated to pay for someone else’s cancer treatments.

Now you can call me anything you want, because I am well ahead of you…

The constitution grants very few entitlements, beyond the basic that everyone must provide to each other, such as justice, liberty, voting and so forth. Just because you have a personal opinion of what a birthright is, doesn’t make it a fact.

Actually tc, the insurance deductible forces you to pay for those mundane things anyway…one of the reasons insurance as it stands in simply BS.

Spidey wrote:The problem I have always had with entitlements…in this case another word for “birthright” is this…

For every entitlement there has to be an “obligation”.

And I personally don’t feel obligated to pay for someone else’s cancer treatments.

I do, and the way it works out, incrementally, I would pay a far larger chunk than you, so maybe that will make you feel better.

The constitution grants very few entitlements, beyond the basic that everyone must provide to each other, such as justice, liberty, voting and so forth. Just because you have a personal opinion of what a birthright is, doesn’t make it a fact.

the Constitution grants the government(Congress) the power to do whatever it deems in the interest of the General Welfare of the nation. As for birthrights, there was mention along the way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. General terms, but certainly an implied set of birthrights. As I said, my list is based on what the population can afford to do, and be a just, kind and, dare I say,Christian society.

Spidey wrote:Actually tc, the insurance deductible forces you to pay for those mundane things anyway…one of the reasons insurance as it stands in simply BS.

Hell, I have deductibles set on my car and house coverage. I can also choose what deductible amount I need because I have a pretty good idea of what most repairs will cost me BEFOREHAND and PLAN for that. Health issues, you're just handing the system your entire net worth and saying "take it, fix me", even before the deductible is met.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Actually tc, the insurance deductible forces you to pay for those mundane things anyway…one of the reasons insurance as it stands in simply BS.

Hell, I have deductibles set on my car and house coverage. I can also choose what deductible amount I need because I have a pretty good idea of what most repairs will cost me BEFOREHAND and PLAN for that. Health issues, you're just handing the system your entire net worth and saying "take it, fix me", even before the deductible is met.

huh? With a deductable(which you can choose, my present one is ZERO, but I pay for that privilige) and a cap on out of pocket, how the hell do you come up with 'handing the system your net worth'? And, to tie into the rest of the thread, strong out-of-pocket caps and removing lifetime benefit limits were the two prime reasons policies got declared 'substandard' and were cancelled under the ACA regs.

now, I made the semi-tongue-in-cheek statement above about a Christian society, only because some here and elsewhere try to claim that this nation was founded on Christian principles.

Well, this fellow, who I've come to sort of admire, has a neat view of what Christian principles ought to entail:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... sm/281874/

Well, I for one know full well that this nation was based far more on Free Mason, Deist and other beliefs (renaissance…etc) than Christian, so that argument won’t work on me.

Not to say Christians weren’t plentiful back then and surely had some influence.

callmeslick wrote:now, I made the semi-tongue-in-cheek statement above about a Christian society, only because some here and elsewhere try to claim that this nation was founded on Christian principles.

Well, this fellow, who I've come to sort of admire, has a neat view of what Christian principles ought to entail:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... sm/281874/

Lol, that’s pretty funny coming from way up high…

Maybe the Vatican could open its vaults and hand out some of that accumulated treasure.

People who advocate sharing the wealth (money) while holding on the real stuff (land & power mostly) really piss me off.

well, they have to settle the pedophilia claims first. Let's see what's left over........

Still, I think the new guy has the right ideals in his head, vis a vis a true Christianity.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Actually tc, the insurance deductible forces you to pay for those mundane things anyway…one of the reasons insurance as it stands in simply BS.

Hell, I have deductibles set on my car and house coverage. I can also choose what deductible amount I need because I have a pretty good idea of what most repairs will cost me BEFOREHAND and PLAN for that. Health issues, you're just handing the system your entire net worth and saying "take it, fix me", even before the deductible is met.

huh? With a deductable(which you can choose, my present one is ZERO, but I pay for that privilige) and a cap on out of pocket, how the hell do you come up with 'handing the system your net worth'? And, to tie into the rest of the thread, strong out-of-pocket caps and removing lifetime benefit limits were the two prime reasons policies got declared 'substandard' and were cancelled under the ACA regs.

You don't get my gripe slick. It's all about the outrageous costs, and knowing what those costs are BEFORE you buy the product. That's not even including the insurance costs, which are exorbitant by themselves. Insurance is only the middleman who takes a $30 or more cut. Even with my present high deductible of $7500, I would still want and need to know what everything's going to cost me before I buy, so that I could stay within that deductible limit. I don't even want to pay for a no deductible policy. The price of that insurance alone would be outrageous. That's why the system is broken. Insurance is masking the huge costs we pay to stave off everyone's death. Simple as that. Why do you think people are going outside our country to get medical care? Cost!

I dare you to go into any hospital, or even your doctor's office, and find out the cost of any procedure, how many doctors, PA's, nurses, equipment uses, room rent and drugs are going to get involved or used and how many bills you're going to receive from how many people before you have that procedure done. And even if you find that out, I'm betting another hospital somewhere else will charge something totally different and equally high. There's not even any market consistency, except that it's all expensive. Maybe if people could shop around for better prices, the competition would hopefully control costs like it does in any normal market system. My car analogy stands. You wouldn't buy a car before you knew the price of that car. I don't want to buy health care before I know the price of the care.